It offers an example of how utterly ridiculous the position of simple is. If RAZD can be so patient let him continue.

Just a reminder though. Simple has been restricted in his posting privileges before and you can see the reasons why. He has shown himself to be a liar as will as "simple" and should not be allowed to post anywhere else.

quote:Change the name still the same ball-game. All you've done is exchanged "spiritual light" for "merged light" in the previous examples (typical move the greased pig goal-post type maneuver). We still have these possibilities here:

(1) in the merged light the two types travel as one, their speed - like the previously defined speed of "pretty darn fast" is also well defined - and when they come to the transition zone they are split apart with physical light now traveling at the normal speed of light, c: this is de facto a change in speed of this light, so the conditions of Message 53 on light being slowed down apply (hyper decay in pre-split times, or the light comes from post-split times).

The only change is in trying to gear it to your understanding. Relax.

This split apart business I think is a misnomer. It would be more like the present light is what was left that could exist in this state. So, the info could be carried still, as it was left in this state universe. Remember, that it was already well on it's way to earth in this scenario, due to the still merged space between here and there.

quote:(2) in the merged light the two types still travel at their own speeds either with

(a) no interaction between them (and thus no change in the speed of light and all the information from SN1987A traveling at the normal speed of light, c, takes 168,000 years to get here, either from (i) pre-split times, in which case decay occurred prior to the split, or (ii) post-split times, in which case the universe is at least 168,000 years old), OR

(b) interaction between them with information passed from faster light to normal light (and thus the evidence of decay is also passed at current time intervals, matching decay rates today, and once again you either have (i) pre-split decay occurring at current rates, so current rates of 14C hold for pre-split tree rings as a measure of their true age, or (ii) post-split decay, with 168,000 year old decay in the universe).

No. You make it sound like two lights traveling together. It was the former light, but, remember, also in the former state universe and space. It was not JUST light that was affected, but the whole universe. How fast could light even our light, travel in a different state, and space time contiuum???? You have NO idea!!! Therefore you speak from ignorance. You need a same past, you don't have one. That negates your model, as concerning the future or past. Really. No wat around it. No wiggling out of this is possible. All that remains is for you to grow an integrity meter, and accept it.

quote: What you are convince of is irrelevant: it is what the evidence shows. The light spectrum matches the light spectrum for cobalt-56,

I never said I wasn't convinced of that much. But, can you tell us please, right now, what cobalt 56 would not be used in creation of a star?? If so, and it was the creation of a star we were seeing in a time reversed way, as if it was an explosion, why not have some cobalt 56??

Or, if we looked at it as the SN1987a area explosion reaching us, due to the split process still merged space between, that could work as well. In that case, we expect that the universe was already PO, so the decay is expected from far away. Either way, the different past explains it every bit as well as your same past myth. See, even if the separation process lasted only say, 4 days, the 77 day decay and etc can be explained by the rest of the universe being PO that we see the light coming in from now, as well.

Or, as I say, if it was some sort of creation in reverse rewound movie, the cobalt 56 spectra would lose it's meaning anyhow as some precise decay in real time measure!!! Either way, your same past myth is just another belief.

By the way, I see Nosy appeared on the scene here, so I should post this plan B link, each post with that little dictator around, could be my last under this identity.

I think I already more or less hoisted your position up as a belief here anyhow. But if this gets cut off, and you want to make a few points, that would be the best place. If not, fine.

quote: There go those greased-pig goal posts again. When in doubt change your position eh? You are now proposing that the light from the star is flipped in time? LOL.

I could see as a possibility that there was some time reversal in deep space, and we may be watching a part of creation in reverse. But, as I say, either way, the different state past can explain it. (No the time idea didn't just happen on this thread)

quote: As previously mentioned there are the neutrinos, another product of decay, subatomic particles that are not light, have mass and travel at or near the speed of light. Particles that were not passed by the light traveling from SN1987A. To which your cogent rebuttals were:

Ah, well that means nothing for your side, really. All we have is an earth based concept of how neutrinos are produced locally. Applying that to the far reaches of the universe is not possible. To do that, we would have to be able to say how neutrinos used to be produced, if at all.

quote: Hard to argue against that. Looks like you just don't understand the neutrino problem.

Once we isolate man's realm, and how we grasp at comprehending locally here, how they are produced now, I think the problem goes away real fast.

quote: Grabbing at straws now? The original "solar problem" was based on the assumption that neutrinos did not have any mass. By the laws of physics this precluded oscillation between flavors of neutrinos. The observation of (one type of) neutrino did not match predicted quantity. Then later experiments showed that neutrinos must have mass. By the laws of physics this means they can oscillate between flavors of neutrinos, and in addition 3 types are then predicted. The detectors were modified to observe all three types and voila all three were observed AND their total matched the predicted quantity. Thus the "solar problem" has been resolved ... this is the way science works, by observation and testing and evidence.

Ah, speaking of grasping at straws now. Yes there are three kinds that we know of. Yes, it seems that they can change flavors. So??? Can you prove that they did change flavors from the sun in the required ratios and amounts???? No. What you do is try and squeeze all things under the PO assumption blanket, and assume that these must have all changed as needed to suit your myth. Right??

I think you are cornered on all fronts here, should admit the box you are found in.

I'm sorry, but what a load of NONSENSE. The maker of this thread is pro evolution. Which is fine. But, why bother wasting his short life posting irrelevant arguments like this? surely he is bored. The whole complexity of the human body, animals, world, universe. He says that there is no purpose, no sense, no logos and no love, in the whole bag of tricks. Well, ok. Then why argue about them? OHHH he says, this is terrible, we must not teach young kids this stuff about creation and age of the earth. I read when I was young the earth is billions of years old, the guy who told me this was 50 years old but he knows!!. And that you make the most amazing machines by leaving matter alone for years. Now teaching kids that it is young and Jesus etc is abuse! Well, why bother arguing about it? Your gonna die of cancer and become dirt anyway, right? no after life. So enjoy life!. Don't waste time here posting crap to give you a cheap thrill of feeling intelligent or something? As an evolved machine I got better things to do with my time. Drugs, sex, lies, deciet. Well, why not? No point in life right? "oh thats terrible, but i love science and love the truth" Ok, but still, why waste time? Richard Dawkins wrote the God delusion book. What a waste of time. Man, he could of been out enjoying his short pointless life. MAYBE, it's the fact that we are Gods image and life to feel superior. Evolution lets us pretend to be better than others, like those who believe in God. Because, we are Gods, but fallen Gods. Thats why we need to ask Jesus to forgive us. I can understand arguing for creation, but evolution, whats the point? the point of evoluton is there is no point! obviously no one here is PRO EVOLUTION, because pro evolutionists are out there having fun with there lives. SEX, DRUGS, NOT LAB WORK.

The only change is in trying to gear it to your understanding. Relax.This split apart business I think is a misnomer. It would be more like the present light is what was left that could exist in this state. So, the info could be carried still, as it was left in this state universe. Remember, that it was already well on it's way to earth in this scenario, due to the still merged space between here and there.No. You make it sound like two lights traveling together. It was the former light, but, remember, also in the former state universe and space. It was not JUST light that was affected, but the whole universe. How fast could light even our light, travel in a different state, and space time contiuum???? You have NO idea!!! Therefore you speak from ignorance. You need a same past, you don't have one. That negates your model, as concerning the future or past. Really. No wat around it. No wiggling out of this is possible. All that remains is for you to grow an integrity meter, and accept it. I think I already more or less hoisted your position up as a belief here anyhow. But if this gets cut off, and you want to make a few points, that would be the best place. If not, fine. Ah, well that means nothing for your side, really. All we have is an earth based concept of how neutrinos are produced locally. Applying that to the far reaches of the universe is not possible. To do that, we would have to be able to say how neutrinos used to be produced, if at all. Once we isolate man's realm, and how we grasp at comprehending locally here, how they are produced now, I think the problem goes away real fast.

Just more denial of the evidence, failure to confront reality and inability to deal with the truth. You have presented no evidence for your position, and it wavers like a will-o-the-wisp whenever it suits you.

The evidence from SN1987A shows the formation and decay of cobalt-56, and not one thing you have proposed in your fantasy world explains that evidence.

By the way, I see Nosy appeared on the scene here, so I should post this plan B link, each post with that little dictator around, could be my last under this identity.http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html

Paranoid? All you need to do is substantiate your position rather than provide fantasy after fantasy: dealing with reality is like that. If you can face reality you can do it here. Even with special dispensation you have not been able to substantiate any of your claims - because you can't: they are fantasy.

But, can you tell us please, right now, what cobalt 56 would not be used in creation of a star?? If so, and it was the creation of a star we were seeing in a time reversed way, as if it was an explosion, why not have some cobalt 56?? Or, as I say, if it was some sort of creation in reverse rewound movie, the cobalt 56 spectra would lose it's meaning anyhow as some precise decay in real time measure!!!

Cobalt-56 is formed by fusion and then decay of nickel-56. All that is needed to form a star is hydrogen. All other elements can be formed by fusion within the stars. This too is observed in the spectrum of light from the stars.

Or, if we looked at it as the SN1987a area explosion reaching us, due to the split process still merged space between, that could work as well. In that case, we expect that the universe was already PO, so the decay is expected from far away. Either way, the different past explains it every bit as well as your same past myth. See, even if the separation process lasted only say, 4 days, the 77 day decay and etc can be explained by the rest of the universe being PO that we see the light coming in from now, as well.Or, as I say, if it was some sort of creation in reverse rewound movie, the cobalt 56 spectra would lose it's meaning anyhow as some precise decay in real time measure!!! I could see as a possibility that there was some time reversal in deep space, and we may be watching a part of creation in reverse. But, as I say, either way, the different state past can explain it. (No the time idea didn't just happen on this thread) I think you are cornered on all fronts here, should admit the box you are found in.

Again you try to move the goalposts with another - entirely different - fantasy. Yet you still fail to address the evidence that shows the decay of cobalt-56. This is not an argument but denial and dodging of the issues. This is not "cornering on all fronts": it totally fails to deal with the front of reality and only presents fantasy after fantasy after fantasy, running away from the contradictions of each fantasy as it is evaluated.

Ah, speaking of grasping at straws now. Yes there are three kinds that we know of. Yes, it seems that they can change flavors. So??? Can you prove that they did change flavors from the sun in the required ratios and amounts???? No. What you do is try and squeeze all things under the PO assumption blanket, and assume that these must have all changed as needed to suit your myth. Right??

Theory predicted the number of neutrinos produced by the sun. Those numbers are observed. It is that simple. All that needs to be demonstrated is that the total number matches the prediction: that is the reality.

It was not JUST light that was affected, but the whole universe.

Funny how Idologists use the argument that the universe is so fine tuned that any small change in any of the basic constants of physics would make the universe either collapse or fall apart, yet here you are doing whole-sale destruction of those constants ... without a clue for what happens as a result.

Changing light isn't enough to explain your fantasy's inability to deal with reality, so now lets include changing the whole universe eh? LOL. This still does not explain the evidence of the cobalt-56 formation and decay, the neutrinos observed from SN1987A and the reality of the world around you.

Stop running from the evidence and face it.

I never said I wasn't convinced of that much.

What you are convinced of is irrelevant. Your inability to deal with the evidence and reality is what is relevant.

quote: The evidence from SN1987A shows the formation and decay of cobalt-56, and not one thing you have proposed in your fantasy world explains that evidence.

Repeat your position all you like. The fact is that I gave a few scenarios where cobalt in the spectrum is no problem at all. I covered it backwards, and forwards. Trying to lock it in to your PO myth is absurd, when we realize that myth is not supported in any way whatsoever!

quote:Cobalt-56 is formed by fusion and then decay of nickel-56. All that is needed to form a star is hydrogen. All other elements can be formed by fusion within the stars. This too is observed in the spectrum of light from the stars.

The fusion in heaven is different. There is no decay and fusion in the way we know it here in this temporary state. Therefore we need to ask the state of any event, to begin to be able to determine what went on.

How would I know if the nickel 56 being put together to create a star didn't result in cobalt 56, or some such?? What can we know about the creation state?? The presence of a material in the spectrum does not mean that it had to have taken place entirely in this state, or even at all.

Conversely, if some still merged universe between the SN1977a allowed the event to be propelled toward earth at non PO speeds, in the state change process, then we ought to see the PO explosion, if that is what it was, in a very PO way. It becomes about as simple as light getting here at the former state speeds.

quote: Theory predicted the number of neutrinos produced by the sun. Those numbers are observed. It is that simple. All that needs to be demonstrated is that the total number matches the prediction: that is the reality.

They had been claiming for years it was a mystery that the number of expected neutrinos was, I think it was, way too low. Now, what are they doing??? Are they still claiming that the ability to change flavors means we attribute all types of neutrinos as coming from the sun, to make up the shortfall??? I don't think we can do that just on the basis of knowing that they "can" change flavors. That is ramming the evidence into a PO box with a big hammer, to try and make it fit the myth.

quote: Funny how Idologists use the argument that the universe is so fine tuned that any small change in any of the basic constants of physics would make the universe either collapse or fall apart, yet here you are doing whole-sale destruction of those constants ... without a clue for what happens as a result.

Herein lies your fundamental downfall and flaw in logic. NO change in present constants is called for here. The present universe IS the change. The present constants of this physical only state universe may have been the same since the split! That changes everything.

quote: Changing light isn't enough to explain your fantasy's inability to deal with reality, so now lets include changing the whole universe eh? LOL. This still does not explain the evidence of the cobalt-56 formation and decay, the neutrinos observed from SN1987A and the reality of the world around you.

The world around us is fine. The neutrinos are no problem. You seem to assume that they only could form in a PO state. I don't. And the presence of materials that now decay is absolutely no problem!

We could look at decaying rocks right here on earth. We have the parent, and the daughter material. The daughter, for example, is NOW produced as a result of decay from the parent material. Before the split, the process was different. The daughter was already there, and part of that former process. Therefore, no amount of daughter material can be used for dating, beyond the period where this state of decay existed.

So, looking at a rock, and seeing the presence of some material does not mean what some might assume it to mean. Neither would it far far away.

" But changes in the supernova's "light curve" over the past year now leave astronomers puzzled.

The changes hint at two dramatic possibilities: the abundance of elements in 1987A may differ widely from that in our solar system, or a new energy source -- perhaps a dense, spinning sphere of neutrons known as a pulsar -- lies hidden at the core of the object."http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n16_v140/ai_11515679 See, they seek some PO black hole, pulsar, or neutron star, or whatever they can cook up to fit the need. But if we also had a different state past to include in the picture, we would not need to grasp just at PO straws.

See, your fairy tales requires a lot of things that can't at all be proved!!

" Once upon a time, about 11 million years ago, in a galaxy not so far away (the LMC), the progenitor star of supernova 1987a was born, Sanduleak -69° 202 with a mass about 18 times that of our sun. For 10 million years this massive star generated energy by fusing hydrogen to form helium like most other stars.

..[you need things like millions of years, and a progenitor, or isn't that 2 progenitors now?!!!]

Observations indicate that by April, another source of energy was providing most of the light: the decay of radioactive isotopes produced in the explosion. An especially important nucleus that formed deep inside the star, just outside the collapsing core, is nickel-56. The theory is that nickel-56 decays into cobalt-56 with a seven-day half-life, then the cobalt nuclei decay into iron-56 with a 111-day half-life, which is stable. So instead of fading from view in a few months, SN 1987A was steadily energized by the decay of fresh radioactive nickel. The light curve tracked the cobalt-56 radioactive decay rate, as one would expect from a system with that as its energy source."

So, the 'theory' is??? I mean, let's face it, it is a stack of assumptions. PO all!

Repeat your position all you like. The fact is that I gave a few scenarios where cobalt in the spectrum is no problem at all. I covered it backwards, and forwards. Trying to lock it in to your PO myth is absurd, when we realize that myth is not supported in any way whatsoever!

I repeat my position because it is not in any way refuted by your will-o-the-wisp "scenarios" that are based on nothing more than idle dreams, not on evidence. The fact that you now need several scenarios that are radically different means you are grasping at straws and not using evidence.

quote:Observations indicate that by April, another source of energy was providing most of the light: the decay of radioactive isotopes produced in the explosion. An especially important nucleus that formed deep inside the star, just outside the collapsing core, is nickel-56. The theory is that nickel-56 decays into cobalt-56 with a seven-day half-life, then the cobalt nuclei decay into iron-56 with a 111-day half-life, which is stable. So instead of fading from view in a few months, SN 1987A was steadily energized by the decay of fresh radioactive nickel. The light curve tracked the cobalt-56 radioactive decay rate, as one would expect from a system with that as its energy source.

Note that this article does not refer anywhere to cobalt-57 and it is dated March 2001. It also discusses the neutrinos that you have still to address. There are also errors in this article as nickel-56 has a half-life of 6.075 days and cobalt-56 has a half-life of 77.233 days (iron-56 is very stable) - and this section is also badly worded, mixing up the decay steps with the half-lives. Not sure I'd trust a site with those kind of errors to be factual.

quote:The light from SN1987A faded at almost exactly the same rate observed in laboratories for the decay of the radioactive nucleus Cobalt-56 into the stable nucleus Iron-56 (the half-life of Cobalt-56 is 77 days). This was not a great surprise, because astronomers had long suspected that supernova explosions were responsible for the formation of the heavy elements in the universe. Theoretical calculations of the formation of heavy nuclei at billions of degrees (the temperature expected during the explosion) indicated that about this much Cobalt-56 would be formed. But the fact that the supernova light decayed just as expected was the strongest confirmation to date of the idea that supernova explosions really did make the heavy elements -- and, for the first time, we could measure exactly how much Cobalt-56 was made (0.07 Solar masses).

After 500 days the visible light faded even faster than the Cobalt-56 decay rate. That happened because after that time dust particles began to form in the supernova debris. The grains absorbed part of the optical radiation and converted it into infrared radiation. Moreover, the supernova debris had thinned out enough so that the gamma rays could escape directly without first becoming converted to optical light. In fact, gamma ray telescopes in space could observe these gamma ray photons, and they saw that the gamma ray photons had exactly the same energy as those produced by Cobalt-56 in laboratories on Earth. That clinched the idea that the supernova explosion made Cobalt-56.

The date on this article is February 2004, and it explains the change in observed light from SN1987A (a) without invoking extra cobalt-57 (and there is no mention of cobalt-57 in this article either) AND (b) with evidence that backs up the energy being transmitted in gamma rays (observed) from the decay of cobalt-56 rather than visible light photons. Gamma rays that exactly match the energy observed in the decay of cobalt-56 on earth: another confirmation that this is cobalt-56 decay being observed.

Conclusion: scientists are no longer "baffled" and cobalt-57 was not the cause of the change in observed photon energy from the decay on SN1987A.

This article ALSO discusses the neutrinos observed coming from SN1987A:

quote:Actually, there were two "observatories" in the Northern hemisphere that did observe SN1987A. ... The neutrinos from SN1987A came right through the Earth and entered these tanks of water from beneath. A very few of them (12 in the Kamiokande detector and 8 in the IMB detector) interacted with atomic nuclei (protons) in the water to make very fast positrons, which in turn made light flashes in the water that the experiments detected. ... From these observations, scientists were able to infer three properties of the neutrino burst: (1) the total energy (about 0.1MSunc2, or 1/10 the mass-energy equivalent of the Sun); (2) the temperature of the neutrino source (40 billion K); and (3) the duration of the neutrino signal (about 10 seconds). All these values were just what scientists expected from theoretical calculations of the collapse of the core of a star to form a neutron star.

And it discusses the evidence for the origin of the rings from the merger of a binary star system as one star was absorbed by the other (a process that also explains the blue star going nova):

quote:Astronomers really don't know -- this triple ring system is one of the outstanding mysteries of SN1987A. Some physical effect must determine the polar axis of the rings. We suspect rotation. But rotation of what? Many astronomers now believe that the parent star of SN1987A was actually a close binary system. Perhaps the inner ring was ejected while the merger took place, 20,000 years before the explosion, ...

And there is still more to come:

quote:We'll also have a chance to learn more about how the supernova created new chemical elements. As you can see in the sequence of Hubble pictures above, the glowing blue region at the center of the supernova is expanding as it fades. At present, the supernova debris that is striking the ring is composed of mostly hydrogen gas from the outer layers of the star that exploded. But within ten years, the newly synthesized elements will reach the crash zone. Then, we should see the bar codes of these elements in the spectrum of radiation from the crash, and we'll begin measuring their distribution throughout the supernova debris.

To summarize:

All the data is consistent with decay of cobalt-56.All the data is not consistent with abnormal levels of cobalt-57.Neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light heralded the visible light display of the nova.Radioactive decay was observed in SN1987A.

So, the 'theory' is??? I mean, let's face it, it is a stack of assumptions. PO all!

Nope, the observations are fact not assumptions. The radioactive decay observed is a fact. The theory predicted the results but the results are not theory or assumption: they are evidence that validate the theory. Stacks of assumptions are not based on facts.

The fusion in heaven is different. There is no decay and fusion in the way we know it here in this temporary state. Therefore we need to ask the state of any event, to begin to be able to determine what went on.

Or, like scientists, we could just observe what goes on. The fact that the observations contradict your claims makes them invalid. This is not surprising seeing as your claims are based on wish instead of reason.

They had been claiming for years it was a mystery that the number of expected neutrinos was, I think it was, way too low. Now, what are they doing??? Are they still claiming that the ability to change flavors means we attribute all types of neutrinos as coming from the sun, to make up the shortfall??? I don't think we can do that just on the basis of knowing that they "can" change flavors. That is ramming the evidence into a PO box with a big hammer, to try and make it fit the myth.

Your inability to deal with simple information that contradicts your wishful thinking has been noted before. It is very simple: all neutrinos are present and accounted for. Your denial does not change this simple fact.

Again you need to deal with the evidence and not your pretend fantasy world.

As far as your fantasy world -- or worlds (seeing as you are now making up new stuff) -- you have yet to present one iota of any kind of substantiation, any kind of relevance that shows your ideas are anything but wishful thinking and fantasy.

We are still waiting for that. At the current rate of substantiating evidence being provided by you we can project that the universe will end before you present any.

quote: I repeat my position because it is not in any way refuted by your will-o-the-wisp "scenarios"

But that matters not at all unless your will o the wisp scenarios based on a same past state were solidly evidenced. As we can see, you simply take an assumed state of the past, and build on that foundation. First, you must have a good foundation, not just your preferred assumption that can't be proven in any way at all!

quote:that are based on nothing more than idle dreams, not on evidence. The fact that you now need several scenarios that are radically different means you are grasping at straws and not using evidence.

I offered two ideas for deep space. None has been ruled out, That means it's two to your one!

quote: The date of your article is 1991. It is old. More recent articles include this one, which you quoted without properly citing (thus falsely implying it is from the source above):

Old is good, as I looked for something that dealt with what was observed near the event. The link I gave was where the quote came from in your quote above. I clicked on it just now, from your post above, and there was the quote in the link.

quote: Note that this article does not refer anywhere to cobalt-57 and it is dated March 2001. It also discusses the neutrinos that you have still to address. There are also errors in this article as nickel-56 has a half-life of 6.075 days and cobalt-56 has a half-life of 77.233 days (iron-56 is very stable) - and this section is also badly worded, mixing up the decay steps with the half-lives. Not sure I'd trust a site with those kind of errors to be factual.

Well, There are as I pointed out a stack of assumptions that go into your story. The time needed, and etc etc etc. Then there was the issue of requiring things to be very different out there anyhow, to be able to produce things we think we see."although the shape of the light curve mimics the decay of cobalt-57, the magnitude of the curve -- indicating the amount of light now emitted by 1987A -- exceeds that predicted by theory, both teams say. One way to explain the greater emissions, note Suntzeff and his colleagues, is to assume that the supernova produced a ratio of cobalt-57 to cobalt-56 five times the ratio typical in our solar system." (the first link)

Now, I could be wrong, but I think this is this guy."..Nicholas Suntzeff, based in La Serena, and associate director for science at the US National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Arizona..."

"Suntzeff says the discovery that even the universe’s smaller galaxies are now dying also raises other, more philosophical questions. "Thinking not as an astronomer, I find this behaviour curious - we are living in a time in the universe when galaxies are dying out," he says. "Is it just coincidence? What is our future?"

No, Nick, no coincidence, this dying state will cease to exist, and the new heavens of the future will be here, the eternal state! But, how could you know that, being but a present state scientist??

Anyhow, I don't know that you are qualified to rag on this guy, or the article too much.

quote: After 500 days the visible light faded even faster than the Cobalt-56 decay rate. That happened because after that time dust particles began to form in the supernova debris. The grains absorbed part of the optical radiation and converted it into infrared radiation. Moreover, the supernova debris had thinned out enough so that the gamma rays could escape directly without first becoming converted to optical light. In fact, gamma ray telescopes in space could observe these gamma ray photons, and they saw that the gamma ray photons had exactly the same energy as those produced by Cobalt-56 in laboratories on Earth. That clinched the idea that the supernova explosion made Cobalt-56.

Nice claim. What support do we have for saying grains absorbed optical radiation? As for gamma rays, seems to me that either an in split explosion, with the light carried fast towards earth, or a star creation might explain it. As for star creation, all we need is some light to match the energy levels of Cobalt -56. Remember, even your article admits that the rates faded faster than what they should, unless we tweak it by adding the dust effects.

quote:Conclusion: scientists are no longer "baffled" and cobalt-57 was not the cause of the change in observed photon energy from the decay on SN1987A.

So they dropped the 57 claim altogether, sprinkled in some stardust, and added an extra star companion, still have the missing black hole and neutron star, and try and make like they have a handle on it! Wow. That's legal??

quote: And it discusses the evidence for the origin of the rings from the merger of a binary star system as one star was absorbed by the other (a process that also explains the blue star going nova):

quote:Astronomers really don't know -- this triple ring system is one of the outstanding mysteries of SN1987A. Some physical effect must determine the polar axis of the rings. We suspect rotation. But rotation of what? Many astronomers now believe that the parent star of SN1987A was actually a close binary system. Perhaps the inner ring was ejected while the merger took place, 20,000 years before the explosion, ...

No, some physical effect does not have to be responsible for the rings. We could look at split effects, and/or creation effects! To look only at the possible PO causes is buffoonery.

quote: To summarize:

All the data is consistent with decay of cobalt-56.All the data is not consistent with abnormal levels of cobalt-57.Neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light heralded the visible light display of the nova.Radioactive decay was observed in SN1987A.

The data is only jimmyrigged to be consistent by PO tweaking. As for neutrinos coming as well as our light, that is no problem at all. The decay we measured by some things that seem shaky to me. This magic act of adding a star here, and having one disappear there as needed, and calling on stardust to claim a certain material decayed, because it is needed for the light curve fading to be explained, etc etc etc is anything but certain. It is an elaborate welding together of the bits of actual evidence, into a hodgepodge PO magic act fable.

quote: Nope, the observations are fact not assumptions. The radioactive decay observed is a fact. The theory predicted the results but the results are not theory or assumption: they are evidence that validate the theory. Stacks of assumptions are not based on facts.

Facts that need black holes lurking in the hidden background, and missing neutron stars, and stardust sprinkled magic wand waving to explain light curves, and etc etc, are not 'facts' anyone need worry at all about.

quote: It is very simple: all neutrinos are present and accounted for. Your denial does not change this simple fact.

If they changed flavors somewhere over the rainbow, we think, we suppose, we just golly gee, almost know??

Now, evidence for the future state of the universe, or past state does not exist. One simply assumes a certain state, and proceeds to filter the evidence accordingly. Yet, when one, like you claims to have a science case, one must have more than belief, and assumption. Face it. All I need, is a bible case. I got one. I also have agreement with all evidence. Your dust altered light curves, and missing evidence, and PO claims, and unknown rings, etc. are storytelling.

Just like the claims you call science about our sun burning out one day, our galaxy crashing one day, etc, are all only, in your dreams!!

Message 66The fact is that I gave a few scenarios where cobalt in the spectrum is no problem at all. I covered it backwards, and forwards. The presence of a material in the spectrum does not mean that it had to have taken place entirely in this state, or even at all. Conversely, if some still merged universe between the SN1977a allowed the event to be propelled toward earth at non PO speeds, in the state change process, then we ought to see the PO explosion, if that is what it was, in a very PO way. Conversely, if some still merged universe between the SN1977a allowed the event to be propelled toward earth at non PO speeds, in the state change process, then we ought to see the PO explosion, if that is what it was, in a very PO way. Message 68I offered two ideas for deep space. None has been ruled out, That means it's two to your one! No, Nick, no coincidence, this dying state will cease to exist, and the new heavens of the future will be here, the eternal state! But, how could you know that, being but a present state scientist?? What support do we have for saying grains absorbed optical radiation? As for gamma rays, seems to me that either an in split explosion, with the light carried fast towards earth, or a star creation might explain it. As for star creation, all we need is some light to match the energy levels of Cobalt -56.No, some physical effect does not have to be responsible for the rings. We could look at split effects, and/or creation effects! To look only at the possible PO causes is buffoonery. Now, evidence for the future state of the universe, or past state does not exist. I also have agreement with all evidence.Your dust altered light curves, and missing evidence, and PO claims, and unknown rings, etc. are storytelling.

This is known as the "god of lies" explanation: every bit of evidence that contradicts your position is disregarded because your god made it that way, miraculously mimicking exactly what is needed, when needed.

If we take the evidence of creation - the universe - as a message from the creator, then we have two options:

(1) if the evidence contradicts your belief interpretation, then this is a message to you that you are wrong about your interpretation and need to reconsider (this is the path that science takes) OR

(2) everything is fake, made up theatrical props, slight-of-hand special effects, all made to fool people.

Your choice.

Face it. All I need, is a bible case. I got one.

So you keep claiming, yet you have still failed to produce evidence that this is so. Empty claims are nothing but will-o-the-wisp fantasy without substantiation. So far all you have is your "god of lies" explanation(s).

Old is good, as I looked for something that dealt with what was observed near the event.

No, you just looked for odd information, information that in no way supports your position for your made-up universes, just something at odds with the standard science. The fact that this bit of evidence has been discredited because it failed to match later observations is irrelevant to you: you are not interested in truth.

What you are admitting here is that you are willfully denying the evidence that disproved the cobalt-57 hypothesis AND the evidence that confirmed cobalt-56 in favor of just being an obstinate misrepresenter of the truth, the fact that the evidence shows decay occurred on SN1987A, evidence based on neutrinos, visible light spectrum lines, decay curves and gamma rays with the correct energy levels.

So they dropped the 57 claim altogether, sprinkled in some stardust, ...

... and observed the gamma rays with exactly the energy that matches those produced on earth now from cobalt-56 decay.

Thus your "god of lies" provides the answer needed for cobalt-56 to be observed just at the right time and just in the right way ... and yet he could just as easily have chosen to provide the cobalt-57 evidence: why did he\she\it (loki) chose one fake information to make and not the other?

Anyhow, I don't know that you are qualified to rag on this guy, or the article too much.

I know enough to know that what was posted was in error and that it showed a lack of critical review of the facts. Just as I know enough to show that all you are doing is posting will-o-the-wisp dreams and not anything founded on any kind of fact.

You have a choice: either you are wrong, or you believe in a "god of lies" -- I recommend reality.

quote: This is known as the "god of lies" explanation: every bit of evidence that contradicts your position is disregarded because your god made it that way, miraculously mimicking exactly what is needed, when needed.

False! In order to see through your lies and fables, to determine what was a result of creation, or the changed universe, you would need to know more that just this universe. Fact.

quote:If we take the evidence of creation - the universe - as a message from the creator, then we have two options:

I don't take what we see as evidence of how He created it. I take what we see as a temporary state universe that will soon forever be replaced. To know what we do see, we would need to know how the universe changed. You can't, and are handicapped with PO severe limitations.

quote:(1) if the evidence contradicts your belief interpretation, then this is a message to you that you are wrong about your interpretation and need to reconsider (this is the path that science takes) OR

In no way, because the evidence doesn't tell us the former universe state, or the future one. It needs to have a starting assumption to interpret what we see. You use the assumption that this is all there is, and will be, and was. I use the assumption God is not a liar, and that this is a temporary universe and laws. Science can't say a thing about it.

quote:(2) everything is fake, made up theatrical props, slight-of-hand special effects, all made to fool people.

No, it is quite real, but how it got in this temporary state is the issue, and also the issue you ignore.

quote:No, you just looked for odd information, information that in no way supports your position for your made-up universes, just something at odds with the standard science. The fact that this bit of evidence has been discredited because it failed to match later observations is irrelevant to you: you are not interested in truth.

Fact is inventing star companions and black holes, and anything else needed to support the PO fantasy is hand waving. Face it.

quote:What you are admitting here is that you are willfully denying the evidence that disproved the cobalt-57

I am questioning the so called evidence, and sister companion assumptions it is wholly based on. The evidence on it's own is my buddy. When we sprinkle stardust on it to make it do what we want, and invent stars and black holes that are MIA, the only thing being denied is your handicapped religion falsely called science.

quote:hypothesis AND the evidence that confirmed cobalt-56

In other words the assumptions, and PO fables mixed, and lumped with the actual evidence!!! You guys do that a lot, like with the tree rings. As if it was all the same state, and we can just pile it all together in the same mold.

quote:in favor of just being an obstinate misrepresenter of the truth, the fact that the evidence shows decay occurred on SN1987A, evidence based on neutrinos, visible light spectrum lines, decay curves and gamma rays with the correct energy levels.

IF we tinker with the light curves, and sprinkle stardust on them to make em fade as needed. IF we invent stars and holes, and stuff to make the picture look like it is PO. IF we assume nothing in the pre split universe could have ended up with a light curve that also fades in a few months. Etc. Don't pretend you and your silly PO handicapped, God denying fables have a lock on the truth, or evidence!

quote:... and observed the gamma rays with exactly the energy that matches those produced on earth now from cobalt-56 decay.

Can you tell us a bit about the dust that made the light fade faster than a cobalt 56 curve normally would be expected to??

quote: I know enough to know that what was posted was in error and that it showed a lack of critical review of the facts. Just as I know enough to show that all you are doing is posting will-o-the-wisp dreams and not anything founded on any kind of fact.

Well, you actually know precious little, compared to what you think, and claim. You have no idea what kind of fact a different universe state in the past could be founded on, if any, or not. And whether the one article that quoted the scientist was off, as you say, or not, the guy still works in some important sounding place. Would he gain some credence if he just posted on some forums??

You have a story that is founded on baseless assumptions of a past universe state you can't begin to prove. It is full of mysteries, and gaps, and missing evidences, and absurdities. When pinned down to actually present the black holes, or dust info, or specs on carbon in the missing tree rings, etc, you resort to personal incredulity, vagueness, PO lumping, and myths.

I thought I even remembered something a while back, where you were sort of questioning why they needed to invent dark matter, or dark energy, etc? Remember also, that MOST of this universe is UNKNOWN, and claimed to be those things.

Now you accuse me of lies: please document one of them. Be sure to show intent.

... to determine what was a result of creation, or the changed universe, you would need to know more that just this universe.

To know what is in this universe I can begin by observing what is in this universe. We don't need to dream up ghosts to see how the real world operates.

The problem you are faced with is that the evidence from SN1987A shows decay of cobalt-56.

You claim that this is not decay but is actually something else, fabricated by your creator to look exactly like decay, down to the light bars, the neutrinos before and the gamma rays afterwards. You claim it is a massive mock-up of fake evidence that is the "real" truth.

I don't take what we see as evidence of how He created it. I take what we see as a temporary state universe that will soon forever be replaced.

Your creator is still responsible for it the way it appears. Omnipotent, omniscient, yada yada. Or are you now saying he is just incompetent?

To know what we do see, we would need to know how the universe changed. You can't, and are handicapped with PO severe limitations.

Correction: to assume a change could have occurred there needs to be some kind of evidence for it. Without any kind of evidence, making such an assumption is just plain foolishness. Scientists have look for variations in the constants (like the speed of light) and have not found any. There is no evidence of change, there is no evidence that would change cobalt-56 decay 168,000 light-years away into something else. For instance we can calculate the speed of light at SN1987A as it traveled from the nova to the ring --we know the distance and we know the time interval based on the observations here -- surprisingly it comes out to the speed of light here and now. That is evidence that the speed of light has not changed in the last 168,000 years.

It needs to have a starting assumption to interpret what we see. You use the assumption that this is all there is, and will be, and was.

False. I only assume that what we observe is the truth. Then we apply what we know to what we observe to see what we can understand, and in this way increase our knowledge.

You on the other hand assume it is a falsehood, and that your creator is hiding the real truth.

Fact is inventing star companions and black holes, and anything else needed to support the PO fantasy is hand waving. Face it.I am questioning the so called evidence, and sister companion assumptions it is wholly based on. The evidence on it's own is my buddy. When we sprinkle stardust on it to make it do what we want, and invent stars and black holes that are MIA, the only thing being denied is your handicapped religion falsely called science. IF we invent stars and holes, and stuff to make the picture look like it is PO.

Missing evidence does not invalidate the evidence we can see. That is all you have left from SN1987A: missing evidence. There are several theories for what is missing, and we'll see what happens when we see more evidence.

In other words the assumptions, and PO fables mixed, and lumped with the actual evidence!!! You guys do that a lot, like with the tree rings. As if it was all the same state, and we can just pile it all together in the same mold. IF we tinker with the light curves, and sprinkle stardust on them to make em fade as needed. IF we assume nothing in the pre split universe could have ended up with a light curve that also fades in a few months. Etc. Don't pretend you and your silly PO handicapped, God denying fables have a lock on the truth, or evidence! You have a story that is founded on baseless assumptions of a past universe state you can't begin to prove. It is full of mysteries, and gaps, and missing evidences, and absurdities. When pinned down to actually present the black holes, or dust info, or specs on carbon in the missing tree rings, etc, you resort to personal incredulity, vagueness, PO lumping, and myths.

The light curves are not tinkered with. We have the visible light curves unchanged from before, and to them we add the gamma ray light curves: the result is more complete information.

Hypothesis used to make a prediction, then that prediction is tested to see if the hypothesis is valid or false. Thus the solar neutrinos, first hypothesis based on zero mass (and no flavor oscillation) is shown to be false; second hypothesis based on mass (and thus flavor oscillations between 3 different 'states' of neutrino) is shown to be valid: new observations of those other flavors show they are present in solar radiation in just the numbers predicted. The same thing occurred with SN1987A and cobalt-57 being falsified and the cobalt-56 being verified by later observations of gamma ray photons in just the right amount to fit the decay rate curve. This evidence is not made up, it is looked for based on the theories. If that evidence had not been there, then that would mean trying new theories and looking for evidence based on what they predict.

This is how science works, advancing on the basis of new evidence, discarding falsified hypothesis and retesting validated ones. Your failure to understand how science works does not invalidate it.

You, on the other hand have not provided any kind of explanation for the light curves observed other than claim that it is NOT decay, thus it is a fake decay, false evidence, that the true creation is hidden behind a facade of falsehoods.

I thought I even remembered something a while back, where you were sort of questioning why they needed to invent dark matter, or dark energy, etc? Remember also, that MOST of this universe is UNKNOWN, and claimed to be those things.

What we don't know doesn't invalidate what we do know. We do know that SN1987A is 168,000 light years away and that the light from it showed the decay of cobalt-56. Soon we will see the light of the elements made in this supernova as they impact the ring around the nova and again cause the light absorption bars that identify the elements. The rational bets are on iron-56 being a visible portion of that mix, with very little cobalt-56 remaining at that time.

You don't have evidence for your claims, you can't explain why the evidence says what it says, and you are left with delusions of reality ...

... or a reality of delusions fabricated by a god of lies. A reality where jack-in-the-beanstalk is real and giants walked in clouds.

Message 18Not if all the trees on earth grew only after the flood. Sorry you seemed to have missed that.

Well that is the point of the dendrochronologies built up of continuous records of tree growth: that the samples used all MUST have occurred after the flood because there is no break in their chronologies.

When pinned down to actually present the...specs on carbon in the missing tree rings, etc, you resort to personal incredulity, vagueness, PO lumping, and myths.

Hardly. Let's see if I can make this simple enough. Going back to dendrochronology, the two living trees show a correlation between age and width of tree rings for their entire period of overlapped growth. In each tree we have a continuous record of tree growth, with continuous tree rings from germination 2832 BC to the present for the Methuselah tree and from 2,880 BCE to 1964 (when it was cut down) for the Prometheus tree. Thus the period of overlap is from 2832 BCE to 1964, a period of 4,796 years. The widths of the rings for each year for each tree show the same pattern of wide and narrow growth due to climate variations. The variations in the rings from year to year are such that no other alignment of those two trees would match the growth pattern for all the rings where they are overlapped (ie - take Prometheus and set it's last ring 1000 years in the past on the Methuselah tree and compare the climate data: they don't match for the now 3,796 years of overlap - or any other). This validates matching tree ring growth patterns for aligning other samples of other trees.

To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginninxg and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the

o eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smoothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a rxig history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or

tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of another chronology (tree rig history) whoxse dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for

tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the exnd section against the end sections of another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extnd back more than 10,000 years exist for

anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of anther chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back mxore than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers). A fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).

can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Flly anchored chronologies which extend back mxore than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers). A fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the brislecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).

We can see that there are some occasional errors in the data, but that overall the full correlation can be determined. The more data we have the less likely the errors will affect the final chronology. This is part of the methodology.

quote:Simply put, dendrochronology is the dating of past events (climatic changes) through study of tree ring growth. Botanists, foresters and archaeologists began using this technique during the early part of the 20th century. Discovered by A.E. Douglass from the University of Arizona, who noted that the wide rings of certain species of trees were produced during wet years and, inversely, narrow rings during dry seasons.

Each year a tree adds a layer of wood to its trunk and branches thus creating the pict of cells annual rings we see when viewing a cross section. New wood grows from the cambium layer between the old wood and the bark. In the spring, when moisture is plentiful, the tree devotes its energy to producing new growth cells. These first new cells are large, but as the summer progresses their size decreases until, in the fall, growth stops and cells die, with no new growth appearing until the next spring. The contrast between these smaller old cells and next year's larger new cells is enough to establish a ring, thus making counting possible.

Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.

In these simplified pictures we see the typical growth pattern involved and then a correlation between the rings of the standing live trees (Methuselah and Prometheus) with the tree rings of recently dead, still standing trees (several samples in several groves) and then with older samples where the trunks are now lying on the ground. The key issue is the matching of the growth patterns extensively over the lives of the trees.

That 4,000 year old standing dead tree overlaps and matches the climate pattern of tree ring growth for the two living trees in only one way: matching it's last ring with the year that it died against the living trees.

quote:A few downed trees in the White Mountains lived over 5,000 years before they fell [41,42,76,77].

Likewise the 5,000 year old fallen dead tree overlaps and matches the climate pattern of tree ring growth in only one way: matching it's last ring with the year that it died against the living trees and the several samples of dead standing trees. We know that there was at least 796 matching tree rings between these fallen ancestors and Methuselah and at least 844 matching tree rings between these fallen ancestors and Prometheus, because the total record stretches for "almost 9,000 years into the past" -- and likely the period of overlap was more than this.

A few fallen dead trees having matching growth patterns in over 800 tree rings with the living trees is not an accident. That there are also dead standing trees that bridge this period of overlap and also exactly match the growth patterns for both the two living trees and those few fallen dead trees that lived over 5,000 years only confirms the overall match.

In the correlation code example above, the first two example represent the two living trees, the middle two examples represent the standing dead trees and the last two examples represent those few fallen dead trees over 5,000 years old.

Then we can compare this chronological relationship with climate with similar chronologies derived from the European Oaks:

quote: Oak is a highly preferred species to use in dendrochronology - in fact, the longest continuous tree-ring chronology anywhere in the world was developed in Europe and is currently about 10,000 year in length. This chronology is providing scientists new insights on climate over the past 10,000 years, especially at the end of the last Glacial Maximum.

quote:The combined oak and pine tree-ring chronologies of Hohenheim University are the backbone of the Holocene radiocarbon calibration for central Europe. Here, we present the revised Holocene oak chronology (HOC) and the Preboreal pine chronology (PPC) with respect to revisions, critical links, and extensions. Since 1998, the HOC has been strengthened by new trees starting at 10,429 BP (8480 BC). Oaks affected by cockchafer have been identified and discarded from the chronology.

And we see the same overall pattern of climate with age in each of three different derived sets of data, and we can see the magnitude of possible error in the methods over those times:

quote:The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 ± 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements.

Before the correction of the German Oak series it was very close to the Bristlecone Pine series and either way -- with the correction or without it -- we are now left with a maximum error of ~40 years in over 8,000 years - less than 0.5% error. Note that oaks and pines are not in the same genus, family, order, class or division and they only share the kingdom Plantae taxonometric classification.

Finally we can - and have - tested these correlations with a second measure, one that is hidden within the tree structure until measured, so there is no way to use this information in creating the alignment of the various samples of trees, but one that clearly would show any errors in such an alignment: the 14C/12C ratio in the various rings in the various samples. Because of the way carbon is incorporated into the tree structure during the year of growth, the tree ring for each year reflects the relative proportions of 14C and 12C available to the tree at that time. Whether 14C decays now at a different rate from in the past or not is irrelevant, because it is a simple truth that the tree rings cannot be the same age and have different 14C/12C ratios: we can test the climate alignment for errors and any errors will show up as different 14C/12C ratios. No such errors are found. It also becomes quickly apparent, due to the actual ratios of 14C/12C found generally declining with ring age, that samples could not be placed severely out of sequence without such errors showing up.

The dendrochronology age to climate relationship is consistent across species, validated by multiple samples in each of the three different chronologies and verified by 14C/12C ratios.

If you want to see the actual data for the graph of 14C age against tree ring age see

Dataset 1 through 7 are the results from different labs. The first column is dendro age, the second column is "14C age", the sixth column is " wiggle match uncertainty" -- generally zero. This is a measure of how accurate each data set is compared to the total data. There are 2,237 samples in the first data set, just to give you an idea of the scope. You can translate this into (14C/12C) of the sample if you know what to do with the information.

quote: Now you accuse me of lies: please document one of them. Be sure to show intent.

Your science lies. Hard to separate things that only concern the present, in science. The rest are lies, and fables. If you echo them, and spout them, why, don't get all sensitive.

quote: To know what is in this universe I can begin by observing what is in this universe. We don't need to dream up ghosts to see how the real world operates.

Yeah, right. Most of what you claim is in this universe is dark this and dark that. You observed squat. You observed something that is an effect of something, and cook up PO causes.

quote:The problem you are faced with is that the evidence from SN1987A shows decay of cobalt-56.

If that were a problem, you could talk about the dust, and missing stuff.

quote: You claim that this is not decay but is actually something else, fabricated by your creator to look exactly like decay, down to the light bars, the neutrinos before and the gamma rays afterwards. You claim it is a massive mock-up of fake evidence that is the "real" truth.

Well, no, try and tell the truth, now. I don't claim it is not decay. I simply said that, so far, the reasons that I have seen that supposedly evidence that are fleeting, and weak. IF it was proven to be decay, we simply can have that from a starting point of a different past. So far, there is no need for that.

quote: Your creator is still responsible for it the way it appears. Omnipotent, omniscient, yada yada. Or are you now saying he is just incompetent?

Limiting wicked man's lifespans by changing the state of OUR universe is not incompetent. WE are the reason that the universe is in the state it is in! We are the reason decay exists!! We are the reason light is slow! Etc.

quote: Correction: to assume a change could have occurred there needs to be some kind of evidence for it.

Correction. The spiritual is not something that present physical only universe folks can find physical or science evidence for. You are hooped!

quote:Without any kind of evidence, making such an assumption is just plain foolishness. Scientists have look for variations in the constants (like the speed of light) and have not found any.

The present temporary state laws should have been the same since they came to be. No such change in OUR constants need exist at all!! You just need to stop assuming our constants were all there ever were for no reason.

quote: For instance we can calculate the speed of light at SN1987A as it traveled from the nova to the ring --we know the distance and we know the time interval based on the observations here -- surprisingly it comes out to the speed of light here and now. That is evidence that the speed of light has not changed in the last 168,000 years.

Before going further, can you show us the basis of why this is claimed?? (That the light traveled from the "nova" to the ring at our light speed?

quote: False. I only assume that what we observe is the truth. Then we apply what we know to what we observe to see what we can understand, and in this way increase our knowledge.

You on the other hand assume it is a falsehood, and that your creator is hiding the real truth.

Well, whoever assumes what aside, let's concentrate on the actual facts and evidence.

quote:Missing evidence does not invalidate the evidence we can see. That is all you have left from SN1987A: missing evidence. There are several theories for what is missing, and we'll see what happens when we see more evidence.

Well, missing evidence certainly does not clinch the case for the side missing evidence either. Think about it.

quote: The light curves are not tinkered with. We have the visible light curves unchanged from before, and to them we add the gamma ray light curves: the result is more complete information.

Well, visible light curves that mean something under what assumptions? That is the question.

quote:Hypothesis used to make a prediction, then that prediction is tested to see if the hypothesis is valid or false. Thus the solar neutrinos, first hypothesis based on zero mass (and no flavor oscillation) is shown to be false; second hypothesis based on mass (and thus flavor oscillations between 3 different 'states' of neutrino) is shown to be valid:

Is it really though?? Why assume that they changed flavor to your favorite and preferred taste?? What evidence is there that they all change just the way you claim?? Oh, right, that would be, I think.....NONE. Work on that.

quote: This is how science works, advancing on the basis of new evidence, discarding falsified hypothesis and retesting validated ones. Your failure to understand how science works does not invalidate it.

You, on the other hand have not provided any kind of explanation for the light curves observed other than claim that it is NOT decay, thus it is a fake decay, false evidence, that the true creation is hidden behind a facade of falsehoods.

Well, no. Maybe it is. But, I prefer to proceed on a clear path. I can easily live with either scenario. The different past is even more accomodating than this present state. If it is decay, then we need proof. For example, the fading light curve business.

quote: What we don't know doesn't invalidate what we do know. We do know that SN1987A is 168,000 light years away and that the light from it showed the decay of cobalt-56. Soon we will see the light of the elements made in this supernova as they impact the ring around the nova and again cause the light absorption bars that identify the elements. The rational bets are on iron-56 being a visible portion of that mix, with very little cobalt-56 remaining at that time.

What you do know is not what you assume. It is what we know. The distance in present light year units is irrelevant to real time. Well, if it is rational, then you could explain it.

quote:You don't have evidence for your claims, you can't explain why the evidence says what it says, and you are left with delusions of reality ...

... or a reality of delusions fabricated by a god of lies. A reality where jack-in-the-beanstalk is real and giants walked in clouds.

Your fables have the whole universe stuffed in a little hot soup. Your reality is temporary state death. If you want to talk real evidences about light curves, go ahead. No matter how much you present evidence, it can be looked at in another way than your myth.

new observations of those other flavors show they are present in solar radiation in just the numbers predicted. The same thing occurred with SN1987A and cobalt-57 being falsified and the cobalt-56 being verified by later observations of gamma ray photons in just the right amount to fit the decay rate curve. This evidence is not made up, it is looked for based on the theories. If that evidence had not been there, then that would mean trying new theories and looking for evidence based on what they predict.[/quote]

quote: Well that is the point of the dendrochronologies built up of continuous records of tree growth: that the samples used all MUST have occurred after the flood because there is no break in their chronologies.

Fine. I need no break with trees that grew in a week.

quote: Hardly. Let's see if I can make this simple enough. Going back to dendrochronology, the two living trees show a correlation between age and width of tree rings for their entire period of overlapped growth. In each tree we have a continuous record of tree growth, with continuous tree rings from germination 2832 BC to the present for the Methuselah tree and from 2,880 BCE to 1964 (when it was cut down) for the Prometheus tree. Thus the period of overlap is from 2832 BCE to 1964, a period of 4,796 years. The widths of the rings for each year for each tree show the same pattern of wide and narrow growth due to climate variations.

OK, so are you saying that in Prometheus, there are 4700 plus physical rings, and we are not missing any now?? Yes or no will do! If yes, then let's see them, and hear about the carbon in the first few hundred. -If no, then, you better get back to the drawing board. Is that simple enough for you?

No, we can't! Only up till the split, then the rings represent much shorter times than seasons. But there were still variations in the days, that we no longer know today. Wet periods, etc.

quote: To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginninxg and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or

Aha!!! Here they admit to lumping!! They need to look at the pre present state rings alone. Simple as that. Otherwise it is useless.

quote: # tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of another chronology (tree rig history) whoxse dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for ..

Correction: 10,000 rings, not years. Big difference.

quote: anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of anther chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back mxore than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers). A fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).

Long as they don't try to anchor it all to a present state universe and growth! Again, rings do not equal years anywhere but in this state. No lumping together in the big assumption.

quote: In these simplified pictures we see the typical growth pattern involved and then a correlation between the rings of the standing live trees (Methuselah and Prometheus) with the tree rings of recently dead, still standing trees (several samples in several groves) and then with older samples where the trunks are now lying on the ground. The key issue is the matching of the growth patterns extensively over the lives of the trees.

That 4,000 year old standing dead tree overlaps and matches the climate pattern of tree ring growth for the two living trees in only one way: matching it's last ring with the year that it died against the living trees.

Great, so we can take the dead tree, and it's 4000 rings, and assume it took anywhere from, say, from 4-6 years, at about two rings a day. - So?? I'm laughing.

quote: The dendrochronology age to climate relationship is consistent across species, validated by multiple samples in each of the three different chronologies and verified by 14C/12C ratios.

If you want to see the actual data for the graph of 14C age against tree ring age see

"In order for carbon dating to by accurate certain foundational assumptions must first be true. We must assume to know that the rate at which carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 hasn't somehow changed throughout the unobservable past. We must also assume to know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime."http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/accuracy-of-carbon-dating-faq.htm

So, the foundational assumptions are totally dependent on a same past state you cannot prove!!!

Now, if this simplified version is anywhere near true, the whole idea of carbon beyond this present state is bogus.

"Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards."

quote: Dataset 1 through 7 are the results from different labs. The first column is dendro age, the second column is "14C age", the sixth column is " wiggle match uncertainty" -- generally zero. This is a measure of how accurate each data set is compared to the total data. There are 2,237 samples in the first data set, just to give you an idea of the scope. You can translate this into (14C/12C) of the sample if you know what to do with the information.

Dendro age does not exist save in your minds. Not beyond this state, as far as ring/years go. There goes the one column!!! Now, 14C age does not exist beyond this state either, so there goes the other column!!! All you have left is your little 'wiggle match uncertainty'. I'll have to say that it is even more uncertain than they dreamed.

Your science lies. Hard to separate things that only concern the present, in science. The rest are lies, and fables. If you echo them, and spout them, why, don't get all sensitive.

You begin to see the hole you have dug yourself, but it is not science that lies to your belief. Reasonable people find it easy to separate out fact from fantasy, and these people will always come to the same conclusion in the end, based on the facts. One cannot base a testable hypothesis on fable and fantasy - and thus these are quickly ruled out when working in science.

But we are also talking about the evidence, not the science that makes the predictions -- the evidence that shows (1) light from cobalt-56 by the light spectrum (2) decay of cobalt-56 according to 77 day half-life, (3) neutrinos that came from SN1987A before the light, (4) gamma rays with precisely the energy seen on earth from cobalt-56 decay. These observations are not assumptions, they are facts.

No, for your belief to be true the universe is made of lies, and it was created that way.

Yeah, right. Most of what you claim is in this universe is dark this and dark that. You observed squat. You observed something that is an effect of something, and cook up PO causes.

If you remember I don't necessarily buy the dark stuffs, it is just one explanation for some anomalous behavior that does not match the theory of gravity. Another one is Brane Theory. Both of these are based on the evidence of observed phenomena and thus still rate higher than your fantasy world of "something" different at some time in the past -- what and when left undefined.

If that were a problem, you could talk about the dust, and missing stuff.

No, if I had more evidence I could talk more about the dust and missing stuff, but this still does not affect the evidence that we do see, the evidence that shows decay. The evidence shows the existence of cobalt-56 on SN1987A as it is formed and as it decays. There is a drop in the visible light curve after 500 days, but it is not sudden - there is a transition. We don't know the exact cause but we do know that after this point we can also detect gamma rays from SN1987A that have exactly the same energy as those produced by cobalt-56 decay here on earth (and not in a stellar fusion reactor), AND we know that when we add these together they add up to the decay curve for cobalt-56.

A cause of dust is not a great mystery, seeing as we are dealing with a star that is blowing up and blasting material into space right left and center. We also know this material is not visible because we can't see it ... except for the latest evidence from the nova: that this sphere of dust has reached the ring and impacted it and caused it to glow with the light frequencies of the material in the first waves of this "dust" --

quote:We predicted that the ring will become hundreds of times brighter than it was, and that it will also become very bright in the radio, infrared, ultraviolet, and X-ray bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Today, all these predictions are coming true. With the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) we can see ultraviolet and optical emission from the fast-moving debris of the supernova. Below is a spectrum from the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph showing hydrogen gas from the supernova debris moving at a velocity of 1/20 the speed of light. The hydrogen emits ultraviolet line radiation when it is suddenly slowed down in a shock wave that is approaching the ring.

(caption to series of pictures of this)By January 8, 1998, the first rapidly brightening hotspot is obvious at about 11:00 o'clock. Note also that the radioactive supernova debris at the center has faded noticeably and expanded a bit. The ring has also faded. By June 16, 2000, three more hotspots have appeared at 7:30 - 8:30 o'clock, and by November 28, 2003, the entire ring is encircled with hotspots.

We know that the first element to hit the rings is hydrogen. My bet is that when the material that was thrown off at the 500 day mark and after hits this ring that the element we will see in the collision light is iron (specifically iron-56, from the decay for cobalt-56). In between we should see carbon, oxygen, and some other products of stellar fusion of a star in its death-throws. Evidence of what really happened.

Well, no, try and tell the truth, now. I don't claim it is not decay. I simply said that, so far, the reasons that I have seen that supposedly evidence that are fleeting, and weak. IF it was proven to be decay, we simply can have that from a starting point of a different past. So far, there is no need for that.

Now you are equivocating. In Message 47 you say; "Your claim that there is decay there is wrong." The rest of this quote is you once again attempting to move the magical mystery goal-posts, but even that won't help you. As noted before, IF there is no decay in your altered different fantasy state world, AND if there is decay on SN1987A, THEN it occurred after your "change" and the decay is 168,000 years old in this universe. THIS means we can use decay for dating things at least as far back as 168,000 years ago.

Limiting wicked man's lifespans by changing the state of OUR universe is not incompetent. WE are the reason that the universe is in the state it is in! We are the reason decay exists!! We are the reason light is slow! Etc.

Do you have evidence for this claim that humans are responsible for ALL of the universe being a lie? As far as I can tell, we can't even influence the orbit of the moon: enlighten me.

Correction. The spiritual is not something that present physical only universe folks can find physical or science evidence for. You are hooped! The present temporary state laws should have been the same since they came to be. No such change in OUR constants need exist at all!! You just need to stop assuming our constants were all there ever were for no reason.

All you prove is that you have a fantasy for which you have zero evidence. If there is no way we can find evidence of it in the present universe, then once again this means that the light from SN1987A traveled at the speed of light and took 168,000 years to get here, that this is entirely consistent with the universe. The other possible conclusion is that the universe is a lie, a fake, a theatrical construct, designed to mislead.

Before going further, can you show us the basis of why this is claimed?? (That the light traveled from the "nova" to the ring at our light speed?

Simple: we know the distance and we know the time: we can measure it out in half-lives of cobalt-56, and we can measure it out in the frequency distribution of light bars in the spectrum of the light (# of vibrations per second). Last time I checked distance divided by time is speed. It's not rocket science.

Well, whoever assumes what aside, let's concentrate on the actual facts and evidence.

Then it is time for you to start. So far you have ignored the evidence or pretended that the it has been falsified somehow by your creator. The actual facts and evidence show cobalt-56 in the light spectrum and cobalt-56 decay in the light curve. The actual facts and evidence show neutrino detection before the light from the nova reached earth. The actual facts and evidence show gamma rays with the precise energy observed in gamma ray emission from cobalt-56 decay on earth.

Well, missing evidence certainly does not clinch the case for the side missing evidence either. Think about it.

And seeing as my evidence is not missing for cobalt-56 decay and other aspects, whereas yours is entirely missing throughout this entire thread, who exactly are you talking about?

Well, visible light curves that mean something under what assumptions? That is the question.

Under the assumption that they are the truth. That is all we assume of any evidence in science.

Is it really though?? Why assume that they changed flavor to your favorite and preferred taste?? What evidence is there that they all change just the way you claim?? Oh, right, that would be, I think.....NONE. Work on that.

No assumption made: it is observed. Your denial and personal incredulity noted.

Once again you are left with a choice: either your personal interpretation (and this whole fantasy altered universe is your personal interpretation) is wrong OR the evidence lies and the creator of the universe made it that way.